Vox Media, founded in 2011, is a prominent digital media company that owns and operates several well-known progressive brands, including Vox, The Verge, Polygon, and Eater. The Vox brand itself launched in 2014 as a project spearheaded by former Washington Post journalists Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell, and Matthew Yglesias. From the outset, its mission was clear: to “explain the news” in a way that simplified complex issues—but with a tone and worldview unmistakably aligned with modern progressivism.
Ownership has changed over time but remains concentrated in ideologically sympathetic hands. Vox Media has received significant investment from private equity firms such as KKR and from venture capital entities like Accel Partners. In 2022, Vox Media merged with Group Nine Media, further consolidating progressive digital brands under one umbrella. Additionally, it has attracted support from philanthropic journalism initiatives tied to left-leaning donors, including funding from organizations that support “equity journalism” and “narrative change” initiatives.
Vox’s financial model relies heavily on advertising, branded content, and partnerships with Big Tech platforms such as YouTube, where its explainer videos are widely promoted through algorithmic boosts. This financial reliance reinforces its incentive to align with prevailing narratives favored by tech elites and progressive advertisers.
Though not owned by a major legacy media corporation, Vox operates as part of the broader ecosystem of left-leaning digital media networks, enjoying frequent collaboration and cross-promotion with outlets like The Atlantic, The New York Times, and NPR. This interlocking ideological network helps ensure that Vox’s editorial stances are amplified across multiple influential channels.
The worldview that animates Vox is overtly secular, technocratic, and progressive. It presents itself as intellectually rigorous and data-driven, yet its conclusions often echo prevailing leftist assumptions about morality, power, and identity. It operates under the guise of “neutral explainer journalism,” yet its framing and selection of issues betray a consistent ideological posture: government activism is good, traditional values are regressive, dissent from progressive norms is dangerous.
Typical Claims and Outlook
Vox brands itself as “explanatory journalism,” promising clarity, context, and facts. However, this promise is often undermined by its selective framing, ideological assumptions, and subtle editorial slant. While Vox rarely uses overt partisan language, its narrative construction, tone, and choice of topics all reflect a worldview in which progressive ideals are treated as self-evident and moral certainties.
Here’s how Vox generally treats major themes:
- Race and Identity: Vox regularly emphasizes systemic racism, white privilege, and institutional bias. Articles and videos explore topics like “How racism shaped the housing crisis,” or “The hidden history of white supremacy in American law.” It accepts the Critical Race Theory framework without question, rarely providing space for competing views.
- Gender and Sexuality: Gender identity is treated as fluid and self-defined, and transgender ideology is affirmed in all contexts. Opponents of child transitions, preferred pronouns, or drag performances in schools are portrayed as reactionary or harmful. Vox frequently highlights “queer joy” and uses progressive terminology like “birthing persons.”
- Religion: Biblical convictions on marriage, abortion, and gender roles are frequently depicted as harmful, bigoted, or outdated. Progressive faith leaders are occasionally celebrated—but only when their views align with modern leftist causes.
- Economics and Capitalism: Capitalism is viewed with suspicion or hostility. Vox advocates for wealth redistribution, universal basic income, and expansive welfare policies. The free market is often portrayed as rigged or exploitative, with socialist-leaning policy preferences normalized.
- Foreign Policy: Vox tends to favor diplomatic idealism, global governance, and multilateral institutions. It often highlights American foreign policy failures while giving soft treatment to left-wing regimes in Latin America or radical Islamic movements, often reducing their violence to “blowback” against Western hegemony.
- Science and Technology: Vox presents itself as pro-science, yet that claim often translates to uncritical promotion of consensus views—especially on climate change, gender ideology in medicine, and COVID-19 mandates—without allowing legitimate debate or dissenting scientific voices.
- Crime and Policing: Crime is framed primarily through a lens of social justice. Vox supports defunding or drastically reforming police, often highlighting narratives of racialized violence while ignoring rising crime statistics or victims of urban lawlessness.
- Politics and Elections: Republicans, especially populists and social conservatives, are portrayed as threats to democracy. Democrats are framed as rational, data-driven problem solvers. Conservative concerns about voter fraud, cultural decay, or administrative overreach are dismissed as paranoid or conspiratorial.
Specific Incidents of Bias
While Vox presents itself as a neutral, explanatory source for understanding the news, its ideological leanings are most visible when it reports on polarizing or high-stakes issues. In such cases, Vox’s carefully constructed image of journalistic objectivity slips, and the underlying worldview becomes unmistakably clear.
Here are two major examples:
1. The 2020 Election and Voter Integrity Laws
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Vox ran numerous articles that painted any concern over election fraud as part of a broader Republican strategy to disenfranchise minority voters. Coverage included headlines like:
- “The GOP’s War on Voting Rights”
- “How Voter ID Laws Disproportionately Harm People of Color”
- “There Is No Evidence of Widespread Fraud. So Why Won’t Republicans Admit It?”
These stories rarely acknowledged legitimate concerns about ballot security, signature verification, or the constitutionality of late changes to voting procedures. Instead, all election integrity efforts were framed as voter suppression rooted in white supremacy or fear of demographic change.
Meanwhile, Vox gave little attention to the explosive revelations about censorship of election-related content by Big Tech or government agencies—a bias of omission that protected left-wing narratives from scrutiny.
2. The War in Gaza and Coverage of Israel
Following Hamas’s brutal terrorist attacks on Israel in October 2023, Vox’s coverage emphasized Palestinian suffering while downplaying or contextualizing Hamas atrocities. One video essay on YouTube began with images of destroyed buildings in Gaza and solemn music, while mentioning Hamas’s rocket attacks almost in passing.
Articles included titles such as:
- “What Led to Gaza’s Latest Crisis?”
- “Why Some Are Calling Israel an Apartheid State”
- “Understanding the Cycle of Violence in the Middle East”
These pieces consistently offered sympathy for the Palestinian cause and framed Israel’s response as excessive, militaristic, and rooted in systemic oppression. Almost no attention was paid to Hamas’s use of human shields, their genocidal rhetoric, or the antisemitic indoctrination of children in Gaza. Pro-Israel voices, including those from within the Muslim world, were virtually absent.
Bias in Language and Framing
Even beyond content selection, Vox demonstrates bias through subtle linguistic cues:
- Conservatives “claim” or “insist,” while progressives “explain” or “advocate.”
- Republican initiatives are framed as “attacks,” “crackdowns,” or “restrictions,” while Democratic initiatives are “expansions,” “protections,” or “reforms.”
- Biblical beliefs are “controversial,” “hardline,” or “extreme,” while gender ideology and abortion rights are “affirming,” “inclusive,” or “essential.”
Vox’s manipulation of language creates an invisible ideological slope: one side climbs uphill against scrutiny, while the other glides downward on a presumption of virtue.
Neo-Marxist or Ideological Influence
While Vox rarely waves ideological flags outright, its content consistently reflects the presuppositions and lexicon of Neo-Marxist thought—particularly the cultural variety rooted in academia and activist circles. The outlet draws heavily from Critical Theory-adjacent disciplines like gender studies, postcolonial studies, and Critical Race Theory, embedding their assumptions into reporting and commentary.
Here’s how Vox displays this influence:
1. Language of Oppression and Liberation
Vox regularly employs progressive academic terms such as:
- “Systemic racism” – Treated as an uncontested reality shaping policing, education, and economics.
- “Equity” vs. “Equality” – With equity preferred, implying unequal treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
- “Decolonize” – Used in articles about education, climate policy, and even museum curation.
- “Gender-affirming care” – Treated as standard medical practice, with no mention of dissenting experts or de-transitioners.
- “Intersectionality” – Used explicitly or implicitly in content that layers various identity categories to define oppression.
By accepting and promoting this vocabulary without critique, Vox aligns itself with a Neo-Marxist interpretive framework that divides the world into oppressors and oppressed, power and powerlessness—where history and policy are filtered through race, gender, and class dynamics.
2. The Subversion of Western Norms and Institutions
Vox often treats traditional Western values with suspicion:
- Religious orthodoxy is linked to homophobia, patriarchy, or regressive social structures.
- The nuclear family is occasionally framed as a byproduct of capitalist or patriarchal systems.
- American founding ideals, when addressed, are viewed primarily through the lens of racial exclusion and economic inequality rather than liberty or self-government.
Whether discussing the Constitution, religious liberty, capitalism, or traditional morality, Vox tends to frame them as historical tools of domination needing reform, reinterpretation, or rejection.
3. Glorification of the Revolutionary Vibe
Even when not explicitly Marxist, Vox’s editorial posture treats activists, protesters, and radical reformers as cultural heroes. Movements like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, and climate strike groups are profiled with admiration, while opposition is treated as reactionary. There is rarely critique of progressive excesses, internal contradictions, or downstream consequences of these movements.
4. Minimal Respect for Dissenting Frameworks
Traditionalist Christian, constitutionalist, or free-market arguments are either absent or caricatured. Faithful Christians who oppose abortion or same-sex marriage are rarely profiled with charity. Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute are usually framed as ideological actors, while progressive think tanks are framed as research-based.
Vox doesn’t have to say it’s “woke.” It explains the world in woke terms—slowly reshaping the worldview of readers who come looking for clarity and leave with a carefully engineered ideology.
Most Ideologically Reflective Figures
Vox was founded in 2014 by three high-profile media figures—Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, and Melissa Bell. Though the organization has evolved over the past decade, these individuals set the ideological and editorial tone early on, establishing Vox as a hub for elite Progressive commentary with a data-driven aesthetic.
Ezra Klein – The Architect of Progressive Explanatory Journalism
Though he left Vox in 2020 for The New York Times, Ezra Klein remains the most ideologically influential figure in Vox’s history. As its founding editor-in-chief, Klein promoted an approach to journalism that combined policy wonkery with Progressive assumptions. He made his name during the Obama era by translating left-wing policy into digestible media for millennial audiences, often defending Obamacare, Keynesian economics, and technocratic governance.
In interviews and essays, Klein has argued that political polarization stems not from disagreement but from one side (the Right) being “epistemically closed.” His framing of conservative values as a byproduct of fear and misinformation shaped Vox’s condescending tone toward the Right.
His later columns at The New York Times continued to reflect Vox’s original editorial spirit—an urbane, Ivy League skepticism of tradition cloaked in social science.
Matthew Yglesias – Policy-Centered but Ideologically Aligned
While slightly more heterodox than Klein, Matthew Yglesias co-founded Vox and was a major driver of its early content, particularly in economic and housing policy. Yglesias departed in 2020, reportedly over tensions with younger staff who wanted more rigid ideological boundaries. His departure revealed internal conflicts within the Progressive camp between older “wonky” liberals and newer “social justice” ideologues.
Despite Yglesias’ gestures toward moderation (he’s since launched the Slow Boring Substack), his tenure at Vox involved pushing policies such as expanded immigration, wealth redistribution, and aggressive climate regulation.
German Lopez – From Crime Reporter to Gun Control Advocate
German Lopez began at Vox covering crime, drugs, and gun policy. His work consistently pushed Progressive narratives on criminal justice reform, anti-policing rhetoric, and gun control—often minimizing Second Amendment arguments and citing left-leaning sources. Though now at The New York Times, Lopez’s Vox articles remain part of its core archives.
Dylan Matthews – Advocating for UBI, Open Borders, and Secular Morality
Matthews, one of Vox’s original contributors, is known for his radical policy stances. He has promoted:
- Universal Basic Income (UBI)
- Open borders immigration
- The abolition of prisons
- Effective Altruism, with secular utilitarian arguments
Matthews once published an article titled “Three Reasons the American Revolution Was a Mistake”, epitomizing Vox’s irreverent posture toward American tradition.
Kelsey Piper – The Futurist with a Post-Humanist Bent
Covering bioethics and futurism, Kelsey Piper has advanced positions that challenge traditional Christian morality. Her writings on transhumanism, embryo experimentation, and AI ethics reflect a postmodern, secular worldview with few restraints.
She also promoted aggressive COVID-19 lockdown policies and argued for vaccine mandates, often framing dissenters as irrational or dangerous.
Scandals, Censures, and Controversies
While Vox has not suffered major defamation lawsuits like some other outlets, it has had internal controversies:
- In 2020, co-founder Yglesias’ signing of the Harper’s Magazine letter on free speech drew ire from colleagues, with staffer Emily VanDerWerff accusing him of endangering trans colleagues simply by endorsing open dialogue.
- Vox staff publicly criticized editorial decisions that allowed “debate” over Progressive orthodoxy, suggesting an increasingly ideological purity within the newsroom.
- Accusations of “performative neutrality” have surfaced when Vox did attempt to explain conservative viewpoints—even when only to critique them.
These moments reveal the ideological tightrope Vox walks: appealing to readers as fair-minded explainers, while internally punishing any hint of deviation from left-wing consensus.
Scandals and Controversies
Vox has generally cultivated an image of professional restraint and intellectual rigor. But beneath its clean graphics and “explanatory journalism” veneer lies a history of ideological rigidity, internal fractures, and controversies shaped by its Progressive agenda.
1. The Ezra Klein / Yglesias Split – Free Speech vs. Activist Staff
One of the more telling moments in Vox’s history came not from external scandal, but internal philosophical collision.
In 2020, co-founder Matthew Yglesias signed the Harper’s Magazine “Letter on Justice and Open Debate”—a statement defending free speech against growing ideological intolerance. His signature ignited backlash from Vox staffers, especially Emily VanDerWerff, a trans writer and critic, who publicly accused him of endangering colleagues. The dispute was emblematic of the broader generational and ideological tension within left-leaning media: between classical liberalism and hardline social justice activism.
Yglesias left Vox shortly after. Though he framed it as a professional pivot, many observers interpreted the departure as an ideological schism within the company. His experience demonstrated how even moderate heterodoxy became untenable within Vox’s increasingly rigid newsroom.
2. Smearing Conservatives with “Explainers”
Vox has occasionally faced criticism—not legal, but ethical—for articles that claimed to “explain” conservative views only to caricature them.
For example, in 2016, Vox published a now-infamous explainer titled “Donald Trump’s supporters backed a racist conspiracy theory. Now he’s appointing them to his Cabinet.” The piece painted broad swaths of conservatives as conspiracy theorists, racists, or white nationalists. Critics noted that the language Vox used wasn’t neutral, but crafted to frame conservative appointments as inherently illegitimate.
The cumulative effect of such “explainer journalism” has been a deep erosion of trust among readers who expected genuine clarity but found ideological gatekeeping instead.
3. COVID Coverage and Mask Mandates
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Vox consistently pushed for the most stringent interpretations of public health orthodoxy. It supported extended lockdowns, strict mask mandates (even for young children), and vaccine requirements—often dismissing or mocking opposing views as “anti-science.”
Yet as more data emerged on natural immunity, vaccine side effects, and the ineffectiveness of cloth masks, Vox rarely published corrections or reevaluations. Their COVID stance reflects not just science reporting, but a Progressive moral narrative: dissent was not merely wrong, but dangerous and socially irresponsible.
4. Sexual Harassment Allegation Against Top Editor
In 2018, Vox Media (the parent company) placed Editorial Director Lockhart Steele on leave following allegations of sexual misconduct. Steele admitted to the accusations and was terminated. This was part of the larger #MeToo wave but proved embarrassing for an outlet that prides itself on social justice credibility.
Vox attempted damage control by publishing employee letters and internal reflections. However, critics noted that their reporting on workplace abuse at other companies often took a far harsher tone than they applied to their own leadership.
5. Criticism from the Left and Right
Perhaps most revealing is the fact that Vox has been accused—by both conservatives and further-left Progressives—of ideological manipulation.
Conservatives see Vox as dishonest left-wing propaganda disguised as neutral explanation.
Meanwhile, some far-left activists accuse Vox of being too cozy with neoliberalism, corporate advertising, and incremental reform. These critics claim Vox silences more radical voices on police abolition, anti-Zionism, or socialism.
Rather than being a sign of balance, this dual criticism reflects how Vox attempts to retain Progressive street credibility while functioning within elite corporate and media ecosystems.
20 Ideological Issues That Define the Divide
Below is an issue-by-issue analysis of how Vox frames, emphasizes, and often distorts 20 key political, moral, and cultural issues that serve as ideological litmus tests in today’s media landscape.
- Election Integrity and Voter Laws
Vox routinely casts conservative-backed election reforms as attempts at “voter suppression.” The outlet opposes voter ID laws and supports automatic voter registration, mail-in ballots, and ballot harvesting. It consistently emphasizes racial inequity in access to voting while downplaying legitimate concerns over ballot chain-of-custody, vote harvesting, and election security. - Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Abortion is framed as essential healthcare. Vox supports unlimited access to abortion through all trimesters and often minimizes the ethical debate over fetal personhood. It has published sympathetic profiles of abortion providers and hostile pieces toward pro-life pregnancy centers, accusing them of “manipulating” women. - Gender Identity and Transgender Policies
Vox is a strong proponent of gender ideology. It promotes “gender-affirming care” for minors, including puberty blockers and surgeries, and uses preferred pronouns without qualification. Dissenting views—especially from feminists, Christians, or detransitioners—are rarely explored or are framed as threats to trans safety. - Race and Systemic Racism
Vox treats systemic racism as an unquestioned reality. It regularly invokes “white privilege,” “structural oppression,” and “equity” as guiding frameworks. The outlet backs DEI programs and promotes Ibram X. Kendi’s approach to antiracism, often conflating policy disagreement with bigotry. - Climate Change and Energy Policy
It echoes Green New Deal priorities and demands rapid decarbonization. Fossil fuels are vilified, while renewable energy is praised uncritically. Vox tends to ignore economic trade-offs or geopolitical dependencies involved in rapid “green” transitions. - Immigration and Border Security
Vox supports amnesty, sanctuary cities, DACA, and relaxed immigration enforcement. It frames border enforcement as xenophobic and covers ICE actions as civil rights violations. It largely avoids coverage of the social costs, crime spikes, or wage suppression connected to illegal immigration. - Israel and the Middle East Conflict
Vox’s tone leans sympathetic to Palestinians and often critiques Israeli defense actions as “disproportionate.” It is critical of U.S. military aid to Israel and frames the conflict in anti-colonialist terms, sometimes drawing sharp criticism for minimizing Hamas terrorism. - Second Amendment and Gun Control
The outlet pushes for strict gun control measures, red-flag laws, and bans on so-called “assault weapons.” It regularly ties the NRA to mass shootings and gun violence and rarely features stories on defensive gun use or Second Amendment jurisprudence. - LGBTQ+ Rights and Religious Liberty
Vox firmly prioritizes LGBTQ+ rights over religious liberty. It supports legal mandates on pronoun use, employment, and public accommodations. It has dismissed Christian business owners’ conscience claims as discrimination under the guise of faith. - COVID-19 Policy and Mandates
Vox strongly supported lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates. It framed dissenters as misinformed or dangerous and rarely featured voices critical of public health overreach. Natural immunity was downplayed until late in the pandemic. - Policing and Criminal Justice
Vox favored the “defund the police” movement and criticized “tough on crime” rhetoric. It has downplayed the consequences of rising crime in cities that enacted “reforms” and framed police departments as systemically racist institutions. - Education and Parental Rights
It supports teacher autonomy and curriculum decisions over parental involvement. Vox has backed the inclusion of LGBTQ+ content in K–12 education and opposes bans on gender ideology and CRT in public schools. - Censorship and Big Tech
Vox generally supports content moderation to curb “misinformation.” It defended Twitter and Facebook’s pre-2022 censorship policies and expressed concern about “free speech absolutism” under Elon Musk. It has been largely dismissive of government-Big Tech collusion claims. - January 6 and Political Violence
Describes January 6 as an “insurrection” and existential threat to democracy. Vox has favorably reported on aggressive DOJ prosecution strategies and painted the entire MAGA movement as complicit in authoritarianism. - Corporate Wokeness and ESG
Vox defends ESG as a responsible market innovation and mocks critics as conspiratorial. It promotes corporate DEI initiatives and praises woke capitalism as part of social progress. - Hunter Biden, Biden Family, and Political Corruption
Coverage of Hunter Biden has been minimal, skeptical of the laptop story, and framed criticism as “right-wing smears.” It largely avoided early coverage of censorship surrounding the laptop before the 2020 election. - Trump and the Republican Party
Vox consistently frames Trump as an authoritarian threat and the GOP as morally compromised. It rarely presents the populist critique of elites or government overreach without sneering condescension. - Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences
Supports affirmative action and views race-conscious admissions as necessary to correct past injustice. The outlet criticized the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down affirmative action as a blow to equity. - International Institutions and Sovereignty
Vox is deferential to institutions like the UN, WHO, and WEF. It frequently cites international consensus as authoritative and frames national sovereignty concerns as reactionary or paranoid. - Culture War Issues
It promotes drag queen story hours, inclusive language reforms, and left-wing definitions of hate speech. Traditional moral views are treated as outmoded, if not dangerous.
Why Vox Belongs in the Hall of Shame
Vox’s inclusion in this Hall of Shame series is not about political disagreement—it’s about intellectual dishonesty, ideological capture, and the erosion of journalistic credibility under the guise of explanatory journalism. While branding itself as a “clarifying” force in modern media, Vox has instead often served as a megaphone for the progressive left, selectively curating information, framing stories to match ideological narratives, and presenting complex issues in deceptively one-sided ways.
What makes Vox particularly dangerous is its pretense of neutrality and expertise. Unlike overtly opinion-driven platforms, Vox often cloaks its ideological messaging in a tone of dispassionate explanation, using phrases like “here’s what you need to know” or “we explain.” This rhetorical strategy gives progressive talking points a veneer of objectivity. It’s a subtle form of propaganda: biased by omission, tone, framing, and the marginalization of dissenting voices.
Narrative Construction, Not Clarification
Rather than informing citizens across the political spectrum, Vox tells a specific segment of the public how to think about nearly every major issue—through a thoroughly progressive lens. From abortion to climate change, from race to religious liberty, Vox doesn’t just report what happened; it instructs the reader on which moral conclusions are acceptable. The result is a platform that recycles academic jargon, cultural fads, and progressive dogma as if they were neutral facts.
Hostility to Competing Worldviews
Vox frequently ridicules traditional American values—religious liberty, family structure, Second Amendment rights, and national sovereignty—as relics of a bigoted past. Rather than engage in civil debate, it pathologizes opposing views: if you’re pro-life, you’re anti-woman; if you believe in border security, you’re xenophobic; if you affirm biblical marriage, you’re hateful.
It rarely engages with the strongest arguments of the conservative or classical liberal positions. When it does, those arguments are typically framed in ways that make them appear irrational, inconsistent, or malicious. There’s little room for good-faith disagreement. Instead, there’s a default posture of moral superiority—a Progressive Gnosticism that assumes its readers are enlightened, and everyone else needs to be re-educated.
Dissent-Free Zones
Internal dissent within progressive journalism is rare, but Vox has developed a particularly stifling culture. Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias—both founding figures—have since distanced themselves from the publication in part due to ideological rigidity and a lack of tolerance for internal debate. When even your co-founders begin questioning the editorial orthodoxy, it’s a red flag.
Shallow Expertise, Deep Bias
Although Vox often cites studies and claims to simplify “the science” or “the facts,” it does so selectively. It fails to acknowledge when experts disagree or when the evidence is contested. This is especially troubling in areas like gender medicine, election law, or COVID policy—where the stakes are high and facts are still developing. Rather than humbly engaging with uncertainty, Vox tends to weaponize selective data to affirm its worldview.
A Captive of Neo-Marxist Categories
Underlying much of Vox’s worldview is an uncritical adoption of Neo-Marxist frameworks: oppressor vs. oppressed, systemic injustice, “equity” over equality, and the redefinition of language to suit ideological aims. In this way, Vox doesn’t just report the news—it actively participates in shaping new moral and social norms that are hostile to biblical faith, constitutional order, and natural law.
Final Verdict
Vox is not simply biased—it is evangelistic for progressive ideology. Its editorial posture is not rooted in classical liberalism, free inquiry, or journalistic integrity, but in a messianic belief that Progressivism must dominate the moral and institutional life of the West. It is an outlet committed to reshaping society according to the precepts of secular humanism, cultural Marxism, and postmodern relativism—cloaked in the language of objectivity and intellectual rigor.
For these reasons, Vox rightly earns its place in the Hall of Shame. Its readers deserve better. The republic deserves better. And the truth demands more than curated talking points dressed up as neutral expertise.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.